SSC v. Fed Mag Forum

[Anonymous User]

Can we please stop arguing? It's almost mid-December. Let's disengage and think about holidays and gifts.

[username5101520]

Can we please stop arguing? It's almost mid-December. Let's disengage and think about holidays and gifts.

I would love to. I started this thread to share my opinion/experience on what I think may be a regularly occurring choice for certain people. Somebody chimed in to say I was wrong (fine) and attack me personally (not fine). I challenged them to explain their reasoning. I'd prefer not to argue on the internet at all, but I wasn't going to let that go.

[Anonymous User]

On habeas review, the federal court reviews the SSC's decision, or other last reasoned decision, on the issues raised. It cannot entertain an issue not fairly presented to the SSC. When a state trial court entertains collateral review, it would not review its SSC's decision. Indeed, it generally could only entertain collateral review on a previously un-raised issue (typically, ineffective assistance or new evidence of actual innocence). That's the key difference. The same is true of a federal trial court hearing a 2255. It does not review the SCOTUS decision. Indeed, it cannot re-pass on that issue once SCOTUS has decided it.

This makes two basic mistakes, so you’re not really helping your case.

1. Federal habeas can evaluate issues not raised in state courts so long as the petitioner satisfies the exceptions to procedural default. This is extremely important in practice.

2. 2255s can reevaluate issues decided on the merits on direct if there has been intervening precedent under 2255(f)(3). Again, in practice this is extremely important, not a minor technicality, since most successful 2255 petitions are “legal innocence” claims involving intervening precedent (i.e. crime of violence issues).

Also state collateral review rules differ state-by-state.

And the standards of review matter because if you ever actually *do* grant a petition because a state court was wrong over the 2254(d) bar, and you somehow get affirmed, you will likely earn yourself a summary reversal by SCOTUS, which is very prestigious.

Let’s remember the posture here. YOU attempted a reducto ad absurdum by attempting to show that my saying MJs review SSC decisions on habeas necessarily means that I would also have to say, to be logically consistent, that a state trial court reviews an SSC decision when it undertakes collateral review. I explained that you were actually engaging in the slippery slope logical fallacy because state trial courts undertaking collateral review do not directly review the SSC decision from the direct appeal, whereas an MJ can and typically does.

You now would need to explain why my logic actually does necessarily and inescapably lead to the absurd conclusion (that state trial courts review SSC decisions). You’ve brought up procedural default and 2255(f)(3). Why do those two things mean that my saying MJs review SSC decisions on habeas must mean I’d also logically have to say state trial courts review SSC decisions?

Now, on to your second, I must be misreading, you surely didn’t type that scotus reverses any grant of habeas relief to a state prisoner that makes it over the 2254(d) bar?

Also, flat out wrong that procedural default is important in practice. It actually rarely comes up and more rarely works, but ok.

You said that you were competent to judge habeas petitions, then made a couple of clear errors. Then you make a couple of more clear errors in your reply.

1. Procedural default is extremely important, idk what to tell you. It comes up constantly and the need to avoid it funnels petitioners to IAC claims.

2. Yes, one of the largest (if not the largest) categories of SCOTUS summary reversals are of circuits holding that 2254(d) was satisfied. Usually the Sixth or the Ninth. You would know this if you had a strong grasp on habeas.

So you're getting personal again, which isn't a strong argument and is unnecessary. Notice I haven't gotten personal with you.

1. Simply wrong. Comes up rarely.
2. That doesn't mean you're guaranteed a summary reversal, come on...

But on to the main show, why do either of these things complete your attempted reducto ad absurdum?

The first thing is genuinely bonkers (as a former double federal clerk and federal criminal law practitioner). Westlaw has more opinions referencing “procedural! default!” in the last year (465) than “ineffective assistance of counsel” (286), “Strickland” (420), “Teague v. Lane” (154), “2254(d)” (365), or “2255” (353). I tried to find a common habeas term that came up more often than it and couldn’t.

[Yeti]

The first thing is genuinely bonkers (as a former double federal clerk and federal criminal law practitioner). Westlaw has more opinions referencing “procedural! default!” in the last year (465) than “ineffective assistance of counsel” (286), “Strickland” (420), “Teague v. Lane” (154), “2254(d)” (365), or “2255” (353). I tried to find a common habeas term that came up more often than it and couldn’t.

Typing in "procedural! default!" (without quotation marks) into Westlaw searches for cases that say procedural OR default (or variations on those root words, given the exclamation point).

You should type in something like "procedural! /1 default!"

[username5101520]

On habeas review, the federal court reviews the SSC's decision, or other last reasoned decision, on the issues raised. It cannot entertain an issue not fairly presented to the SSC. When a state trial court entertains collateral review, it would not review its SSC's decision. Indeed, it generally could only entertain collateral review on a previously un-raised issue (typically, ineffective assistance or new evidence of actual innocence). That's the key difference. The same is true of a federal trial court hearing a 2255. It does not review the SCOTUS decision. Indeed, it cannot re-pass on that issue once SCOTUS has decided it.

This makes two basic mistakes, so you’re not really helping your case.

1. Federal habeas can evaluate issues not raised in state courts so long as the petitioner satisfies the exceptions to procedural default. This is extremely important in practice.

2. 2255s can reevaluate issues decided on the merits on direct if there has been intervening precedent under 2255(f)(3). Again, in practice this is extremely important, not a minor technicality, since most successful 2255 petitions are “legal innocence” claims involving intervening precedent (i.e. crime of violence issues).

Also state collateral review rules differ state-by-state.

And the standards of review matter because if you ever actually *do* grant a petition because a state court was wrong over the 2254(d) bar, and you somehow get affirmed, you will likely earn yourself a summary reversal by SCOTUS, which is very prestigious.

Let’s remember the posture here. YOU attempted a reducto ad absurdum by attempting to show that my saying MJs review SSC decisions on habeas necessarily means that I would also have to say, to be logically consistent, that a state trial court reviews an SSC decision when it undertakes collateral review. I explained that you were actually engaging in the slippery slope logical fallacy because state trial courts undertaking collateral review do not directly review the SSC decision from the direct appeal, whereas an MJ can and typically does.

You now would need to explain why my logic actually does necessarily and inescapably lead to the absurd conclusion (that state trial courts review SSC decisions). You’ve brought up procedural default and 2255(f)(3). Why do those two things mean that my saying MJs review SSC decisions on habeas must mean I’d also logically have to say state trial courts review SSC decisions?

Now, on to your second, I must be misreading, you surely didn’t type that scotus reverses any grant of habeas relief to a state prisoner that makes it over the 2254(d) bar?

Also, flat out wrong that procedural default is important in practice. It actually rarely comes up and more rarely works, but ok.

You said that you were competent to judge habeas petitions, then made a couple of clear errors. Then you make a couple of more clear errors in your reply.

1. Procedural default is extremely important, idk what to tell you. It comes up constantly and the need to avoid it funnels petitioners to IAC claims.

2. Yes, one of the largest (if not the largest) categories of SCOTUS summary reversals are of circuits holding that 2254(d) was satisfied. Usually the Sixth or the Ninth. You would know this if you had a strong grasp on habeas.

So you're getting personal again, which isn't a strong argument and is unnecessary. Notice I haven't gotten personal with you.

1. Simply wrong. Comes up rarely.
2. That doesn't mean you're guaranteed a summary reversal, come on...

But on to the main show, why do either of these things complete your attempted reducto ad absurdum?

The first thing is genuinely bonkers (as a former double federal clerk and federal criminal law practitioner). Westlaw has more opinions referencing “procedural! default!” in the last year (465) than “ineffective assistance of counsel” (286), “Strickland” (420), “Teague v. Lane” (154), “2254(d)” (365), or “2255” (353). I tried to find a common habeas term that came up more often than it and couldn’t.

"As a former double federal clerk and federal criminal law practitioner" is what's called an appeal to authority. It's a common logical fallacy. Next.

Westlaw searches, as you likely know, given your impressive resume, show the tip of the iceberg.

It seems you're getting really incensed. Take a breath. The reality is, you're wrong. For the most part, habeas arguments are raised about issues squarely presented and decided, relatively commonly about whether an issue has been fairly presented, and sparingly about procedural default. Even more sparingly is that a procedural default argument works.

But, again, it's a sideshow. Let's assume, arguendo, that you're correct on it. Why would the frequency of procedural default, and the statistical frequency of SCOTUS summary reversals of habeas grants over the 2254(d) bar, complete your original, attempted, reducto ad absurdum. To refresh, since we've gotten far afield, that original attempted reducto ad absurdum was:
1. I said "Fed Mag clerks review SSC decisions in criminal cases, on habeas, so you're essentially 'higher up the chain' as a Fed Mag clerk."
2. You said: if correct, that would necessarily mean that state trial courts are reviewing SSC decisions on collateral review, and federal DCt judges review SCOTUS on collateral review.
3. That's absurd, so (1) must be incorrect.

I agreed that such a conclusion would be absurd, but I argued that this was not a true reducto ad absurdum because 1 does not NECESSARILY lead to 2. Rather, I argued, this was the slippery slope fallacy (another common logical fallacy). The slope can be stopped by stopping the logic behind (1) at courts that directly review the decisions of other courts and excluding courts that only look at different issues in the same case.

You now would need to show why that does not stop the slope, (1) does necessarily lead to (2), and thus your reducto ad absurdum is complete.

You brought up and have argued the statistical prevalence of (a) procedural default and (b) SCOTUS summary reversals of habeas grants over the 2254(d) bar. So, the next, and only, question is: why do those things mean that my attempt to stop the slope doesn't work and mean that (1) necessary does lead to (2)?

[Anonymous User]

Typing in "procedural! default!" (without quotation marks) into Westlaw searches for cases that say procedural OR default (or variations on those root words, given the exclamation point).

You should type in something like "procedural! /1 default!"

Yes, I used the quotation marks (i.e. the "exact phrase" option in advanced search).

To OP, my point was that you don't understand habeas, and the arg that your MJ is actually an appellate judge is an example of that. But to take your wall of text on its own terms, 2255(f)(3)-type petitions allow federal district judges to grant relief on claims that SCOTUS denied (or more likely denied cert on) on the merits, which according to you would be an appeal from SCOTUS. State systems can have similar features (for example, they are required to apply some new rules retroactively under Montgomery v. Louisiana). This was pointed out to you several pages ago without response. But your whole theory is a category mistake, and I don't think you've persuaded anyone regardless of this particular bug in it.

Also nobody cares about informal logical fallacies and you should excise them from your argumentative vocabulary. And again not all anon comments are by the same person.

[username5101520]

Typing in "procedural! default!" (without quotation marks) into Westlaw searches for cases that say procedural OR default (or variations on those root words, given the exclamation point).

You should type in something like "procedural! /1 default!"

Yes, I used the quotation marks (i.e. the "exact phrase" option in advanced search).

To OP, my point was that you don't understand habeas, and the arg that your MJ is actually an appellate judge is an example of that. But to take your wall of text on its own terms, 2255(f)(3)-type petitions allow federal district judges to grant relief on claims that SCOTUS denied (or more likely denied cert on) on the merits, which according to you would be an appeal from SCOTUS. This was pointed out to you several pages ago without response. But your whole theory is a category mistake, and I don't think you've persuaded anyone regardless of this particular bug in it.

Also nobody cares about informal logical fallacies and you should excise them from your argumentative vocabulary. And again not all anon comments are by the same person.

I believe your original point was to say that I was incorrect that MJs are higher up the chain than SSCs because MJs review SSC opinions on habeas. IF your original point was only to come and tell me, a random person on an internet message board that you've never met, that "you don't understand habeas," well, that's a mean thing to do, but I hope it made you feel good/better about yourself.

If, however, I'm correct that your original point was to say that I was incorrect that MJs are higher up the chain than SSCs because MJs review SSC opinions on habeas, then your saying "you don't understand habeas" was just an unnecessary personal attack in what otherwise would've been a fine point to debate. "When the debate is lost, slander becomes the tool of the loser.”-Socrates.

Now, on to the remaining legal argument you've made. Surely you're not saying that 2253(f) the following is permissible:
1. SCOTUS puts out an opinion,
2. A federal district court reviews that SCOTUS opinion for some sort of error?
Or that the following is permissible:
1. SSC puts out an opinion,
2. A state trial court reviews that opinion for some sort of error?

Are you saying that? I hope you can respond with a simple yes or no, since it is a simple yes or no question.

"Nobody cares about informal logical fallacies" is...wow. I'll just leave that for the readers of this thread to judge for themselves. People can make their own inferences about whether to trust someone who thinks that. I know what I think.

As to whether I've persuaded anyone, well, people can read our back and forth and judge for themselves. It's perfectly ok with me if people don't agree with me. I started this thread to offer my opinion/experience. The personal attacks aside, I was/am interested to understand your logic behind your opinion that my statement was wrong. Thus far, you haven't persuaded me, mainly because you haven't followed through with completing your reasoning chain (and because I have a hard time trusting someone who doesn't think logic is important).

[Anonymous User]

I studied actual logic once upon a time, which is how I know that informal logical fallacies are fake. And that's the fakest Socrates quote in the history of fake Socrates quotes. It sounds nothing like him.

[Anonymous User]

You all are actually not persuading anyone, and are mainly just generating a lot of entertainment for us non-participants. You should probably change topics now.

[username5101520]

I studied actual logic once upon a time, which is how I know that informal logical fallacies are fake. And that's the fakest Socrates quote in the history of fake Socrates quotes. It sounds nothing like him.

Very good. Well done. I've been unable to get in touch with Socrates's representatives to verify.

[username5101520]

You all are actually not persuading anyone, and are mainly just generating a lot of entertainment for us non-participants. You should probably change topics now.

Again I wasn't really aiming to persuade anyone. The other person insulted me and also said I had made an abusrd statement. I tried to ask them questions to understand their reasoning. They never explained it. It was more about my own understanding than anything. Though admittedly the personal attack hurt my feelings.

[Anonymous User]

My irrelevant musings:

1. Using Latin phrases/making up Socrates quotes is cringe

2. No one cares about habeas (double fed clerk here, inb4 “reducto ar hominem authoritatum appealum”)

3. The bickering over irrelevant shit reminds me of the trash attorneys I see losing summary judgment because they ask the most inane, irrelevant questions in depos

SSC > Fed Mag for BigLaw. I think Fed Mag is a lot more practical for civil litigators because of the discovery experience. SSC goes far in the state (especially in a small state), but certain SSCs are worth it for BigLaw (CA, MA, DE,TX, to name a few).

[Anonymous User]

SSC > Fed Mag for BigLaw. I think Fed Mag is a lot more practical for civil litigators because of the discovery experience. SSC goes far in the state (especially in a small state), but certain SSCs are worth it for BigLaw (CA, MA, DE,TX, to name a few).

This answer really nails it. If you can master the art of navigating discovery disputes and discovery issues as a young litigator, you will master civil litigation. So you're right that the absolute best place to get a master class on discovery prior to practicing is with a federal magistrate.

District court judges dive in now and then but it's not a focus for their dockets, because of the availability of fed mags. And appellate judges are useless on these topics. More than half of them come from criminal law backgrounds so they are permanently in a state of utter confusion about civil discovery.

[username5101520]

My irrelevant musings:

1. Using Latin phrases/making up Socrates quotes is cringe

2. No one cares about habeas (double fed clerk here, inb4 “reducto ar hominem authoritatum appealum”)

3. The bickering over irrelevant shit reminds me of the trash attorneys I see losing summary judgment because they ask the most inane, irrelevant questions in depos

SSC > Fed Mag for BigLaw. I think Fed Mag is a lot more practical for civil litigators because of the discovery experience. SSC goes far in the state (especially in a small state), but certain SSCs are worth it for BigLaw (CA, MA, DE,TX, to name a few).

Mainly I wasn't trying to bicker but just understand the double fed clerk's reasoning. I would've preferred not to bicker at all. Double fed clerk came with the personal attacks. I was nothing but respectful.

I didn't make it up, but I am aware it's not clear he said it haha. The substance of the line was spot on though. I stand by that. The latin is just the name for the type of logical argument double fed clerk tried to make.

I think "no one cares about habeas" is a bit of an exaggeration. Certainly the lawyers working on them, and the clients, care a great deal.

[username5101520]

SSC > Fed Mag for BigLaw. I think Fed Mag is a lot more practical for civil litigators because of the discovery experience. SSC goes far in the state (especially in a small state), but certain SSCs are worth it for BigLaw (CA, MA, DE,TX, to name a few).

This answer really nails it. If you can master the art of navigating discovery disputes and discovery issues as a young litigator, you will master civil litigation. So you're right that the absolute best place to get a master class on discovery prior to practicing is with a federal magistrate.

District court judges dive in now and then but it's not a focus for their dockets, because of the availability of fed mags. And appellate judges are useless on these topics. More than half of them come from criminal law backgrounds so they are permanently in a state of utter confusion about civil discovery.

This is an interesting and helpful position. My experience has been that my MJ clerkship is far better for biglaw than my SSC clerkship. But, as was pointed out several comments ago, that could be more attributable to geographic difference.

[Anonymous User]

SSC > Fed Mag for BigLaw. I think Fed Mag is a lot more practical for civil litigators because of the discovery experience. SSC goes far in the state (especially in a small state), but certain SSCs are worth it for BigLaw (CA, MA, DE,TX, to name a few).

This answer really nails it. If you can master the art of navigating discovery disputes and discovery issues as a young litigator, you will master civil litigation. So you're right that the absolute best place to get a master class on discovery prior to practicing is with a federal magistrate.

District court judges dive in now and then but it's not a focus for their dockets, because of the availability of fed mags. And appellate judges are useless on these topics. More than half of them come from criminal law backgrounds so they are permanently in a state of utter confusion about civil discovery.

I think this is exactly right.

[Anonymous User]

Big firms in my state (one of the ones with more notable SSCs) give standard clerkship bonus for the SSC, as well as some SSCs of other notable states.

I am unaware of a big firm here that gives bonus for a federal MJ clerkship, regardless of district. That's not to say none do, I just have not heard of it or think it is common.

[username5101520]

Big firms in my state (one of the ones with more notable SSCs) give standard clerkship bonus for the SSC, as well as some SSCs of other notable states.

I am unaware of a big firm here that gives bonus for a federal MJ clerkship, regardless of district. That's not to say none do, I just have not heard of it or think it is common.

This is interesting. Other data point is that I was unaware of people from my SSC getting clerkship bonuses, but I believe they're common for MJ clerks in my current district.

This gives credence to the hypothesis that they're relatively even, and jurisdiction makes a big difference. You note that you were in a notable SSC. I clerked for a non-notable SSC, but now for an MJ in what's considered a relatively very competitive district.

[Anonymous User]

Big firms in my state (one of the ones with more notable SSCs) give standard clerkship bonus for the SSC, as well as some SSCs of other notable states.

I am unaware of a big firm here that gives bonus for a federal MJ clerkship, regardless of district. That's not to say none do, I just have not heard of it or think it is common.

This is interesting. Other data point is that I was unaware of people from my SSC getting clerkship bonuses, but I believe they're common for MJ clerks in my current district.

This gives credence to the hypothesis that they're relatively even, and jurisdiction makes a big difference. You note that you were in a notable SSC. I clerked for a non-notable SSC, but now for an MJ in what's considered a relatively very competitive district.

I was probably too anonymous/sparse with information. I should say my state is Texas, and perhaps it's because as others noted, there are relatively few SCOTX spots to MJ clerkships available across the state. So scarcity might play a role.

[username5101520]

Big firms in my state (one of the ones with more notable SSCs) give standard clerkship bonus for the SSC, as well as some SSCs of other notable states.

I am unaware of a big firm here that gives bonus for a federal MJ clerkship, regardless of district. That's not to say none do, I just have not heard of it or think it is common.

This is interesting. Other data point is that I was unaware of people from my SSC getting clerkship bonuses, but I believe they're common for MJ clerks in my current district.

This gives credence to the hypothesis that they're relatively even, and jurisdiction makes a big difference. You note that you were in a notable SSC. I clerked for a non-notable SSC, but now for an MJ in what's considered a relatively very competitive district.

I was probably too anonymous/sparse with information. I should say my state is Texas, and perhaps it's because as others noted, there are relatively few SCOTX spots to MJ clerkships available across the state. So scarcity might play a role.

Well, also just SCOTX clerkships are very competitive to get and particularly excellent opportunities. If I ran a law firm, I'd aggressively recruit SCOTX clerks for sure.

[Anonymous User]

Big firms in my state (one of the ones with more notable SSCs) give standard clerkship bonus for the SSC, as well as some SSCs of other notable states.

I am unaware of a big firm here that gives bonus for a federal MJ clerkship, regardless of district. That's not to say none do, I just have not heard of it or think it is common.

This is interesting. Other data point is that I was unaware of people from my SSC getting clerkship bonuses, but I believe they're common for MJ clerks in my current district.

This gives credence to the hypothesis that they're relatively even, and jurisdiction makes a big difference. You note that you were in a notable SSC. I clerked for a non-notable SSC, but now for an MJ in what's considered a relatively very competitive district.

Different anon, but I have never heard of a biglaw firm giving clerkship bonuses to MJ clerks, every firm I've worked at and interviewed with give bonuses for SSC clerks. (Have worked at multiple V20s)

[Anonymous User]

Big firms in my state (one of the ones with more notable SSCs) give standard clerkship bonus for the SSC, as well as some SSCs of other notable states.

I am unaware of a big firm here that gives bonus for a federal MJ clerkship, regardless of district. That's not to say none do, I just have not heard of it or think it is common.

This is interesting. Other data point is that I was unaware of people from my SSC getting clerkship bonuses, but I believe they're common for MJ clerks in my current district.

This gives credence to the hypothesis that they're relatively even, and jurisdiction makes a big difference. You note that you were in a notable SSC. I clerked for a non-notable SSC, but now for an MJ in what's considered a relatively very competitive district.

Different anon, but I have never heard of a biglaw firm giving clerkship bonuses to MJ clerks, every firm I've worked at and interviewed with give bonuses for SSC clerks. (Have worked at multiple V20s)

i've definitely seen some firms give mj clerks the bonus - wilmerhale comes to mind

[username5101520]

Big firms in my state (one of the ones with more notable SSCs) give standard clerkship bonus for the SSC, as well as some SSCs of other notable states.

I am unaware of a big firm here that gives bonus for a federal MJ clerkship, regardless of district. That's not to say none do, I just have not heard of it or think it is common.

This is interesting. Other data point is that I was unaware of people from my SSC getting clerkship bonuses, but I believe they're common for MJ clerks in my current district.

This gives credence to the hypothesis that they're relatively even, and jurisdiction makes a big difference. You note that you were in a notable SSC. I clerked for a non-notable SSC, but now for an MJ in what's considered a relatively very competitive district.

Different anon, but I have never heard of a biglaw firm giving clerkship bonuses to MJ clerks, every firm I've worked at and interviewed with give bonuses for SSC clerks. (Have worked at multiple V20s)

That's interesting. Did you clerk for an MJ?

[Anonymous User]

I can't really comment on "prestige" (because it really does matter so little), but having practiced for a half-dozen years, I'd say the MJ is much more valuable for most biglaw jobs. As a biglaw associate in most of the major markets, you'll do relatively little state court litigation and odds are you won't have a big appellate docket. But assuming you're in litigation, you're very likely to be involved in complex discovery disputes in federal court, which is a lot of what MJ's do. An MJ would have been much more relevant to the projects I had as a securities/complex commercial litigation associate at a V20 than my CoA clerkship was.

The MJ is going to be far more relevant as well if you want to be an AUSA or FPD since they handle almost everything pretrial on the criminal side.

The SSC is going to get you a bonus at more firms, and is better for getting appellate work, or if you anticipate a lot of your practice being in state court in the state where you clerked, which will be more common in midlaw than in biglaw. As others have referenced here, SCOTX is probably uniquely helpful for Texas biglaw since the tippy-top Texas firms seem to be in state court more often than the comparable firms in other big states (NY, CA, etc.).

[Anonymous User]

I can't really comment on "prestige" (because it really does matter so little), but having practiced for a half-dozen years, I'd say the MJ is much more valuable for most biglaw jobs. As a biglaw associate in most of the major markets, you'll do relatively little state court litigation and odds are you won't have a big appellate docket. But assuming you're in litigation, you're very likely to be involved in complex discovery disputes in federal court, which is a lot of what MJ's do. An MJ would have been much more relevant to the projects I had as a securities/complex commercial litigation associate at a V20 than my CoA clerkship was.

The MJ is going to be far more relevant as well if you want to be an AUSA or FPD since they handle almost everything pretrial on the criminal side.

The SSC is going to get you a bonus at more firms, and is better for getting appellate work, or if you anticipate a lot of your practice being in state court in the state where you clerked, which will be more common in midlaw than in biglaw. As others have referenced here, SCOTX is probably uniquely helpful for Texas biglaw since the tippy-top Texas firms seem to be in state court more often than the comparable firms in other big states (NY, CA, etc.).

Fwiw MJs did not do much criminal work beyond initial appearances in my district. But in some they e.g. take guilty pleas too. MJ duties will vary by district (a particularly well-known difference is SDNY vs. EDNY).